Prompted by this nies series of komiks. Mimi and Eunice is very rekomendabl.
Then i did sum initial reeding, starting with Wikipedia.
Eeven tho thear is noe sientifik konsensus about just hou saef thees helmets ar, it seems to me that the purson hu konklooded that this is basikaly korekt:
“The exercise is included to show the maximum impact on fatalities that helmet
laws could have in the best of all possible worlds. It is included for three
reasons: as an indication of the scale of the benefits the intervention might
achieve, as a contribution to debates about the costs and benefits of helmet
legislation, and as a methodology that others may wish to refine. It is most
certainly not an estimate of the expected reduction. It assumes universal and
correct use of helmets, it assumes that risk compensation does not occur and it
assumes that no children die as a result of strangulation or other injuries caused
by helmet use. These assumptions are most unlikely to be correct in the real
world.” (Gill, Tim (2005) (PDF). Cycling and Children and Young People, A review. National Children’s Bureau. pp. 42–43. ISBN 1-904787-62-2.)
Seems liek a typikal kaes of an oeverly strong fokus on saefty (esp. with children “save the children”) with disregard for other konsekwenses of such lors. Ofk, thear ar orlsoe isues with paternalism.